Posts filed under 'War on Terror'
The Wall Street Journal Reports…
The Obama camp said they canceled the event after the Pentagon ruled it was a campaign event, and needed to be funded from the senator’s election kitty.“Senator Obama did not want to have a trip to see our wounded warriors perceived as a campaign event when his visit was to show his appreciation for our troops and decided instead not to go,” Obama advisor, retired Gen. Scott Gration, said in a statement.
How about visiting the troops without the media tagging along, then it wouldn’t look like a campaign event. Senator Obama is spending $5 on advertising during the Olympics, but won’t visit wounded soldiers on his campaign’s dime? Apparently, it’s more important for him to have the media take pictures of him at the Ritz Carlton gym lifting weights, than to take a moment leave the press behind and talk to the people who defend this country.
NBC and Hot Air are now confirming that Obama did not visit the troops because press would not be allowed to also attend.
Why Obama snubbed the troops: no photo op allowed
MSNBC First ReadObama No Cameras Then No Troops
Tags: media attention, media darling, Military, no cameras, no media, troops, wounded soldiers, wounded troops
July 27th, 2008
Barack Obama - “Now, all of us recognize that we must do more than look back - we must make a judgment about how to move forward. What is needed? What can best be done? What must be done? Senator McCain wants to talk of our tactics in Iraq; I want to focus on a new strategy for Iraq and the wider world.”
This is the crux of Obama’s Iraq problem. He doesn’t want to look back, but he has based his campaign on his original statement against the Iraq War; yet he’s shown no particular incite since that initial decision. Senator Obama doesn’t want Senator McCain to discuss tactics because Senator McCain has been tactically correct, while Senator Obama has demonstrated zero understanding of military tactics.
The Obama strategy for months has been to tie Senator McCain to President Bush and the Iraq War. However, this simplistic approach ignores historical realities. Senator McCain bucked his party, and the president, and called for Donald Rumsfeld’s removal as Secretary of Defense. Then he angered people on both sides of the aisle by pushing for the surge/counterinsurgency strategy. Remember it was a Democrat that labeled the surge ‘the McCain Doctrine’ as Source Watch notes,
The “surge” has also been called the McCain doctrine, a label coined by John Edwards to describe a proposed surge in troop levels and escalation of the war in Iraq named after its “chief advocate”, Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.).
Senator McCain did not just sign on to the president’s war strategy; he was one of the leaders that pushed the president to adopt the counterinsurgency strategy. He made a stand that was considered political suicide; he pushed for an unpopular strategy having just seriously criticized the president’s Secretary of Defense.
On the campaign trail he and Senator Biden were the only candidates in either party giving details about Iraq. They voiced their opinion and took questions from frequently skeptical audiences. While their views were different; they both should be commended for directly addressing the most pressing issue of the day in a direct and honest manner.
While progress was slow it did come, and it came due to the counterinsurgency strategy. Some people hesitate to accept this success because they are angry that we even went to war, or are unwilling to accept progress due to their anger at the president and the myriad of mistakes made on his watch. However, this isn’t about the president, or the candidates for that matter. People’s lives hang in the balance; the decisions made by the next president will determine the fate of many people of whom most of us will never know. Like it or not, we are a country at war, and looking forward is incredibly important. Choosing a candidate who understands war, the military, tactics, and strategy is vital. Senator McCain may not be everybody’s first choice, but he fits the bill for commander-in-chief at this particular point in history.
McCain Doctrine / Surge Success Leaves Obama Spinning
Update: The McCain campaign just released this video,
Obama Iraq Documentary recounting the numerous positions Senator Obama has taken on the Iraq War.
Tags: foreign policy, mccain doctrine, Military, military strategy, military tactics, obama iraq, surge success
July 17th, 2008
Susan Rice’s false statement about the Kennedy Khruschchev meeting leaves open two questions. Are Obama foreign policy advisors up to snuff to guide a candidate and potential president? Are Obama advisors making misleading or false statements in order to win votes? First, Dr. Susan Rice is a Rhodes Scholar, a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institute, and has worked on the Kerry and Dukakis campaigns. It seems hard to believe that she would have thought that the Kennedy Khruschchev meeting really resolved the Cuban Missile Crisis. If she did, it is a troubling gap in knowledge for such an accomplished international relations scholar.
Consequently, that raises the second question of whether this is a tactic to sway votes by misleading people. Was Susan Rice trying to cash in on the popularity of JFK by assuming most people would not know their history well enough to challenge her? This isn’t Rice’s first misstatement. She has been trying over the last few months to walk back Senator Obama’s statement that he would meet with dictators of rouge nations in the first year of his presidency without preconditions. The tactic being to confuse people with a debate between ‘precondition’ and ‘preparations’. Yet, Dr. Rice expressly stated, “Nobody said he would initiate contacts at the presidential level; that requires due preparation and advance work.” That is false, Senator Obama in a YouTube debate expressly stated he would meet with the leaders of Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela without preconditions, which drew criticism from people on both sides of the isle. This begs the question is this a bumbling foreign policy, or old school politics. A decission to say anything regardless of its veracity to put your candidate in office.
YouTube Clip of Senator Obama agreeing to meet without preconditions
First published at Purple People Vote
Tags: 2008 election, foreign policy advisor, ignorance, Obama, politics
June 12th, 2008
YouTube Clip of Susan Rice’s Statement
Unfortunately, Susan Rice’s statement regarding the Kennedy Khrushchev meeting, “Thank God he did because if he hadn’t we would have not been able to resolve the Cuban Missile Crisis” is completely false. In fact historians agree that this meeting fueled the Cuban Missile Crisis.
The Weekly Standand, in detailing the Kennedy Khrushchev meeting, quotes NYT columnist James Reston who interviewed President Kennedy right after his meeting with Khrushchev,
“Reston reported that Kennedy said just enough for Reston to conclude that Khrushchev “had studied the events of the Bay of Pigs” and that he had “decided that he was dealing with an inexperienced young leader who could be intimidated and blackmailed.” Kennedy said to Reston that Khrushchev had “just beat [the] hell out of me” and that he had presented Kennedy with a terrible problem: “If he thinks I’m inexperienced and have no guts, until we remove those ideas we won’t get anywhere with him. So we have to act.”
Kennedy responded to the meeting with a congressional request for a dramatic increase in defense spending, and a significant increase in the size of the military. Khrushchev responded to Kennedy’s actions with above ground nuclear testing and erecting the Berlin Wall. The tensions between the US and Soviet Union dramatically increased due to the Kennedy Khrushchev meeting; the Cuban Missile Crisis followed.
Susan Rice’s statement is simply false. There is no historical record of the Kennedy Khrushchev meeting being at all helpful in resolving the Cuban Missile Crisis and actually the exact opposite true that an inexperienced leader was bullied into an arms race.
First Published at Purple People Vote
Tags: cuban missile crisis, experience, foreign policy, john lehman, Obama, obama advisor, obama foreign policy, susan rice
June 11th, 2008
The back and forth between the McCain and Obama camps about negotiations between the future president and the leaders of foreign dictatorships, such as Ahmadinejad in Iran and Castro in Cuba, addresses a real substantive difference in foreign for these two candidates. This clip from the CNN YouTube debate answers the question if Senator Obama will meet with dictators in the first year of his presidency.
Senator Obama has also stated that he wouldn’t require pre-conditions before negotiating with these dictators, but later stated that there would be preparations. There are several troubling things about this. First, as Senator Clinton pointed out in the debate, a president shouldn’t guarantee a meeting in their first year as they could be used as a pawn for propaganda purposes. Second, the comparisons between Iran and the Soviet Union are weak. The situations are very different, and not recognizing that is deeply troubling. Third, citing that ‘preparations’ but not ‘pre-conditions’ are needed for a presidential meeting is political tap dancing. What does that mean? Most everything in life requires preparation. He’s either trying to back out of a policy that even Democrats agree is foolish, or he’s still believes in this policy and is instead trying to push the question aside.
The Obama campaign instead of clarifying its own position has muddled the issue by attacking Senator McCain. First, Senator McCain was accused of saying that he would meet with Hamas without pre-conditions. This was proven untrue. The statement from Senator McCain said that since Hamas was elected by the Palestinians that they would have to be ‘dealt with’ as the leader of that government. That was not a promise of negotiations. Second, they accused Senator McCain of supporting normalization in relations with Cuba. However, Senator McCain stated that this was to happen only if Cuba took steps to embrace Democracy (a pre-condition). Finally, throughout this back and forth examples have been given where the U.S. government engages in diplomacy at lower levels of government. This however, is not the issue. Senator McCain’s point wasn’t that there should be no diplomatic relations; it was that the President of the United States should not be guaranteeing meetings without preconditions. Senator Obama has stated that Senator McCain’s views are naïve and that one shouldn’t be afraid to meet with foreign leaders. This may be what really shows how ‘in the weeds’ Senator Obama is in regards foreign policy. Numerous people from both sides of the isle have noted how foolish Senator Obama’s diplomacy policy is; yet he still accuses Senator McCain of naiveté. Now there may be some criticisms that the Obama campaign will be able to make stick to Senator McCain, but it’s hard to believe that calling him scared and naïve will ring true with anyone.
Tags: Ahmadinejad, candidate, Clinton, Democrats, dictators, foreign policy, Hamas, Iran, mccain, Obama, president, Senator Obama
May 21st, 2008
John McCain today issued the following statement:
“After Senator Obama’s own advisors and supporters backtracked from his stated desire to hold summit meetings with the leaders of the world’s worst regimes, Senator Obama himself has begun to reinterpret his stand. He now claims that some ‘fear’ to ‘negotiate’ with the likes of Iranian President Ahmadinejad, who has called Israel a ’stinking corpse’ or Ayatollah Khamenei, who called Israel a ‘cancerous tumor.’ I have news for Senator Obama: I have met some very bad people before in my life. It is not fear that drives my opposition to unconditional meetings with Ahmadinejad, Khamenei, Kim Jong Il, and Raul Castro; rather it is my clear understanding that such a course will fail to eliminate the threat posed by these rogue regimes. I don’t fear to negotiate. Instead I have the knowledge and experience to understand the dangerous consequences of a naive approach to Presidential summits based entirely on emotion.
“The question before the American people is which candidate is best able to secure the peace for the next generation of Americans, a peace that will keep our nation safe, prosperous and free. Senator Obama’s desire to meet unconditionally in his first year at the presidential level with Iranian leaders is reckless, and demonstrates poor judgment that will make the world more dangerous. With respect to Cuba, it is not America that needs to make unilateral concessions to the Castros — a ‘gesture of good faith’ as Senator Obama said yesterday — it is the Castro brothers who must allow the freedom they have so long denied to the Cuban people. Free the political prisoners, open the media, allow people to worship, schedule free and fair elections, and the United States will be happy to meet and talk. Until then, we cannot compromise our principles.
“Senator Obama has consistently offered his judgment on Iraq, and he has been consistently wrong. He said that General Petraeus’ new strategy would not reduce sectarian violence, but would worsen it. He was wrong. He said the dynamics in Iraq would not change as a result of the ’surge.’ He was wrong. One year ago, he voted to cut off all funds for our forces fighting extremists in Iraq. He was wrong. Sectarian violence has been dramatically reduced, Sunnis in Anbar province and throughout Iraq are cooperating in fighting al Qaeda in Iraq, and Shi’ite extremist militias no longer control Basra — the Maliki government and its forces do. British and Iraqi forces now move freely in areas that were controlled by Iranian-backed militias. The fight against al Qaeda in Mosul is succeeding in further weakening that deadly terrorist group, and many key leaders have been killed or captured. As General Petraeus said last month, ‘As we combat AQI we must r emember that doing so not only reduces a major source of instability in Iraq, it also weakens an organization that Al Qaeda’s senior leaders view as a tool to spread its influence and foment regional instability.’ Iraqi forces have moved unopposed into Sadr City, a development the New York Times characterized today as a ‘dramatic turnaround’ as the government of Prime Minister Maliki ‘advanced its goal of establishing sovereignty and curtailing the powers of the militias.’
“We continue to face challenges in Iraq, and we have a lot of work ahead. Yet the American people must ask whether we are more or less likely to succeed there if Senator Obama has his way. Each of these positive developments in Iraq is the direct result of the new strategy that Senator Obama opposed. Senator Obama consistently predicted the new strategy would fail, and at every step events have demonstrated his judgment was consistently wrong. He now says that he intends to withdraw combat troops from Iraq — one to two brigades per month until they are all removed — regardless of the conditions in Iraq, irrespective of the consequences for our national security, and despite the best advice of our commanders on the ground. He is wrong again, and the American people deserve a President who has the strength, judgment and experience to keep our country safe and secure.”
May 21st, 2008
Senator McCain made the following remarks during a speech today in Chicago…
“Before I begin my prepared remarks, I want to respond briefly to a comment Senator Obama made yesterday about the threat posed to the United States by the Government of Iran. Senator Obama claimed that the threat Iran poses to our security is “tiny” compared to the threat once posed by the former Soviet Union. Obviously, Iran isn’t a superpower and doesn’t possess the military power the Soviet Union had. But that does not mean that the threat posed by Iran is insignificant. On the contrary, right now Iran provides some of the deadliest explosive devices used in Iraq to kill our soldiers. They are the chief sponsor of Shia extremists in Iraq, and terrorist organizations in the Middle East. And their President, who has called Israel a “stinking corpse,” has repeatedly made clear his government’s commitment to Israel’s destruction. Most worrying, Iran is intent on acquiring nuclear weapons. The biggest national security challenge the United States currently faces is keeping nuclear material out of the hands of terrorists. Should Iran acquire nuclear weapons, that danger would become very dire, indeed. They might not be a superpower, but the threat the Government of Iran poses is anything but “tiny.”
“Senator Obama has declared, and repeatedly reaffirmed his intention to meet the President of Iran without any preconditions, likening it to meetings between former American Presidents and the leaders of the Soviet Union. Such a statement betrays the depth of Senator Obama’s inexperience and reckless judgment. Those are very serious deficiencies for an American president to possess. An ill conceived meeting between the President of the United States and the President of Iran, and the massive world media coverage it would attract, would increase the prestige of an implacable foe of the United States, and reinforce his confidence that Iran’s dedication to acquiring nuclear weapons, supporting terrorists and destroying the State of Israel had succeeded in winning concessions from the most powerful nation on earth. And he is unlikely to abandon the dangerous ambitions that will have given him a prominent role on the world stage.
“This is not to suggest that the United States should not communicate with Iran our concerns about their behavior. Those communications have already occurred at an appropriate level, which the Iranians recently suspended. But a summit meeting with the President of the United States, which is what Senator Obama proposes, is the most prestigious card we have to play in international diplomacy. It is not a card to be played lightly. Summit meetings must be much more than personal get-acquainted sessions. They must be designed to advance American interests. An unconditional summit meeting with the next American president would confer both international legitimacy on the Iranian president and could strengthen him domestically when he is unpopular among the Iranian people. It is likely such a meeting would not only fail to persuade him to abandon Iran’s nuclear ambitions; its support of terrorists and commitment to Israel’s extinction, it could very well convince him that those policies are succeeding in strengthening his hold on power, and embolden him to continue his very dangerous behavior. The next President ought to understand such basic realities of international relations.”
Tags: 2008 election, Democrats, independents, Iran, iranian, mccain, national threat, nuclear threat, Obama, persia, republicans, threat
May 19th, 2008
I’m sure by now everyone has read the Washington Post piece by Jamie Rubin in which he suggests John McCain wanted to meet Hamas without preconditions.
As the day continued, it became clear that Rubin was being somewhat less that forthright.
It turns out that he was flat out lying. The McCain Campaign released a video with the full answer to the question today, including this bit Rubin couldn’t be bothered to include in his piece.
Rubin: “So should the United States be dealing with that new reality through normal diplomatic contacts to get the job done for the United States?”
Sen. McCain: “I think the United States should take a step back, see what they do when they form their government, see what their policies are, and see the ways that we can engage with them, and if there aren’t any, there may be a hiatus. But I think part of the relationship is going to be dictated by how Hamas acts, not how the United States acts.”
The video can be found here.
I like to see an apology from both Jamie Rubin and The Washington Post. Sadly, I don’t expect one.
Tags: Jamie Rubin, John McCain, Media Bias, smear, Washington Post
May 16th, 2008
Older Posts
